September 13, 2012

"... where hundreds of protesters attacked the American Embassy, two days after assailants killed the American ambassador in Libya and crowds tried to overrun the embassy compound in Cairo."

Writes the NYT, where I struggle to figure out how they know the precise motivation of a mob. Who is conveying this information to the NYT? And even if we do know that it is that video that's firing up the mob, I'd like to know the source of the mob-members' knowledge of the video? Surely, they are not individually clicking on YouTube and watching it and deciding on their own how outraged to be. There must be intermediaries inciting the mob, saying things about the video to stir people up and set them off. Who are they? What are they saying?

There's this, down at the end of the article:

Little is known about the origin of the video that provoked the protests, which is called “Innocence of Muslims.” It was made in obscurity somewhere in Southern California and promoted by a network of right-wing Christians with a history of animosity directed toward Muslims. When a 14-minute trailer of it was posted on YouTube in June, it was barely noticed.

But when the amateurish video was translated into Arabic and reposted twice on YouTube in the days before Sept. 11, and promoted by leaders of the Coptic diaspora in the United States, it drew nearly one million views and set off bloody demonstrations.

Where's the proof of causation in that last sentence? Is it just the timing? This happened and then that happened. Correlation/causation. Were the demonstrators people with internet connections, or were the one million views from the Coptics? Who is promoting this theory of causation and why should we trust them? The video was translated.... Save us from the passive voice, New York Times. I remember when journalists asked a set of question the first of which was who?

Meanwhile, we know what our leaders are saying about and to this mob (though I don't see how these statements reach the mob, so maybe they aren't to the mob at all):

“This video is disgusting and reprehensible,” Mrs. Clinton said in remarks at the State Department, broadcast live on CNN. She also said “The U.S. government had absolutely nothing to do with this video.”

Do these mob-members — on the off chance that they're listening — understand that assertion? If they don't care about freedom of speech and want government suppression of blasphemy, then it is the government's responsibility. If there's a spree of robberies in my city, I'm going to get mad at the government, even though the robbers aren't government agents.

Protesters tore down and burned an American flag, replacing it with their own banner proclaiming the Islamic faith, witnesses said.

They want a different system of government, which would prohibit the video Mrs. Clinton denounces as disgusting and reprehensible. And we here in America are having a debate about what our political values are. It is not to censor videos. I trust that's not in question. But there is a question about whether our governmental officials should denounce privately made and distributed movies in an effort to calm down people who hate our political values.

President George Bush said it well: They hate our freedom. Here's his speech from September 20, 2001:

Americans are asking "Why do they hate us?''

They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.

They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. They want to drive Israel out of the Middle East. They want to drive Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and Africa.

These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against us because we stand in their way.

We're not deceived by their pretenses to piety.

We have seen their kind before. They're the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where it ends in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies.

11 years later, we are having a debate here in America. We've cast George Bush out into the shadows. We elected a President 4 years ago who made many of us believe he could make them not hate us. We're having a new election now, and we have to talk.

The movie is only a tool used to incite the mob. What in the hell is wrong with people in those countries that they are so willing to go out and act like that? Malignant lemmings. Stop blaming the movie/cartoon/turn of phrase/wayward glance - blame the people. The culture. The instigators. The guilty.

"Wasn't the video first posted on YouTube in July? Are internet connections in the Arab world that slow?Somehow I doubt the video had anything to do with this. Arab Spring and 9/11 anniversary, more likely."

Yeah, sure. And they don't always know. And sometimes they find "links" without being able to establish a clear causal connection, so out come the weasel words. Unless you want them to make that shit up.

We elected a President 4 years ago who made many of us believe he could make them not hate us.

He didn't make you believe that (where's your conservative sense of personal responsibility?), you chose to believe that. I supported Obama and I never believed "he could make them not hate us." That's on you.

A modus operandi of Al Quaida and their ilk is to instigate a riot at an embassy or other governmental installation, and then use that riot as cover for a planned military operation. The riots are a diversion and aren't spontaneous by any stretch of the imagination. The instigators have learned that all they need is one factual point of offense, however tenuous, and the western press will offer up excuses on behalf of the attackers and ignore the real story.

We elected a President 4 years ago who made many of us believe he could make them not hate us.

Yeah, "you" did that... and since what they hate is our success, affluence, religious freedom and diverse culture, the guy you voted for has done his damnedest trying to ruin all of that, to humble us and make us "equal".

What kind of a primitive savage do you have to be to watch a video and then go out on a violent rampage? Why do liberals make excuses for these savages and blame the person who exercised his free speech rights?

phx - the problem with you libs is your are overly concerned with what the Arabs think about us. What do you think about THEM? Shouldn't they be concerned about that unstable white man with the nuclear bombs?

I can't stand the use of the term "Prophet Mohammed." It is utterly unjustified and cedes the primary issue at hand to the bad guys before the debate ever starts.

Does the NYTimes use the terms "Prophet Elijah" or "Prophet Isaiah?" How about "the Messiah Jesus Christ?" I don't think so. Why not? Isn't that a tacit admission that they see Mohammed's claim as legitimate and the Christian claims as mythical? I don't think it is, I think it is just typical oikophobic political correctness, but I guarantee you that throughout the world the members of the Religion of Peace see the difference, and are heartened by it.

Caroline Glick's article, mentioned by davis,br is the meatiest piece I've seen on the al-Qaeda coordinated embassy attacks:

On June 4 the White House confirmed that the US had killed Abu Yahya Al-Libi - OBL's Libyan lietenant who had moved into Al Qaeda's #2 spot after Ayman Zahawiri after the Navy SEALs whacked OBL.

On Tuesday 9/11, a tape was released of Zawahiri announcing that Libi had been killed earlier this year by a US drone attack. The Zawahiri tape was made during Ramadan which ended in the middle of last month. Zawahiri called for his terrorist underlings to avenge Libi's death and especially exhorted Libyans to take revenge.

The attack in Libya was well planned and executed. It wasn't about a spontaneous protest against some ridiculous internet movie of Muhammad. The assailants came armed to the teeth, with among other things, RPG 7s. They knew that the US Ambassador was in Benghazi rather than Tripoli. They knew how to track his movements, and were able to strike against him after he and his colleagues left the consulate building and tried to flee in a car. As Israel Channel 2's Arab Affairs Correspondent Ehud Yaari noted this evening, you don't often see well trained terrorists participating in protests of movies.

Then there is the attack in Cairo. They were led by Mohammad Zawahiri - Ayman Zawahiri's brother. According the Thomas Josclyn in the Weekly Standard, the US media has been idiotically presenting him as some sort of moderate despite the fact that in an interview with Al Jazeerah he said said, "We in al Qaeda..."

It is amazing that the ambassador in a country we unilaterally invaded without congressional authority dies in an embassy attack coordinated on the anniversary of 9/11 who apparently didn't have much security under those circumstances and the MSM says the events are about a crappy movie on Youtube and Romney's completely reasonable commetns on the events.

People should respond to finding out someone is a journalist for the major outlets as if they admit to being pedophiles.

"What kind of a primitive savage do you have to be to watch a video and then go out on a violent rampage?"

What kind of primitive savage do you have to be to torture and lynch a young black boy for allegedly flirting with a white woman? (Emmett Till.) What kind of primitive savages must you be to allow decades of brutal lynchings--at which many attended with packed picnic lunches?

Don't flatter yourself that we are any less savage or primitve. We're human beings, after all.

Cook - who is WE kimosabe? I'm a Russian Jewish immigrant to this country 30 years ago. I and my family have NOTHING to do with that racist past. Try harder Cookie because America is filled with immigrants from country that do not take BULLSHIT from idiots like you.

What kind of primitive savage do you have to be to torture and lynch a young black boy for allegedly flirting with a white woman? (Emmett Till.) What kind of primitive savages must you be to allow decades of brutal lynchings--at which many attended with packed picnic lunches?

Cookie, the Commie, who on this board bears any responsibility for that act?

"...since what they hate is our success, affluence, religious freedom and diverse culture...."

What makes you think they care in the least about that?

I was about to post the same thing. "They" know nothing about us. How can someone hate that which they do not know? I believe this comes down to tribalism and what are essentially disputes between who insists on being in charge. The larger point being is that you aren't going to reason with this enemy; you either slaughter them or leave and we don't have the stomach for the former.

There was a profound lack of interest over the source of the Danish cartoon riots as well. And our media refused to show the cartoons so that anyone else could judge the reasonableness of being so offended as to murder people. Actual reporting would have allowed individuals to be informed, to understand, and to put it all into perspective. Actual reporting would have made clear that the only truly offensive "cartoons" were not cartoons and not drawn by Danes but added by the Imams who incited the violence for the purpose of inciting the violence.

We treat the poor rioting dears like children having tantrums who get whatever they want no matter who gets killed. It matters how and why the translated version "popped up" right before 9-11.

It matters that we show ourselves ready to grovel and condemn those who have unnamed and obviously baseless bigotry (not like Muslims ever hurt *them* after all, it's just, like, out of the blue) and made an insulting film. We put up with freaking Fred Phelps and a bunch of hot-heads on the other side of the world can't stand some fellow in Florida named Jones without breaking out in uncontrolled violence and murder?

And our media won't even ask the right questions, the important questions, and won't bother to report or investigate or find out what happened so that we can make informed decisions about something this important. Because they already know what our decisions are supposed to be.

And a few little statements by Romney aren't enough to tip the balance of them finally *liking* us because Obama says nice things.

Does anyone really believe some obscure YouTube video made by an equally obscure individual is the cause of this turmoil? Seriously?

Because if it truly is, then the world needs to come to grips with the reality that the so called tiny minority if radicals is in fact, a healthy percentage of Muslims who seem to need little motivation to embark on murder and mayhem.

It's one or the other and if its a tiny minority then the silent majority needs to get off their collective ass and start cleaning to their so called religion of peace. Quite frankly I'm weary of seeing rage contorted faces of bearded Muslims screaming for blood in the streets.

Robert Cook said..."...since what they hate is our success, affluence, religious freedom and diverse culture...."

What makes you think they care in the least about that?

9/13/12 11:32 AM

Who knows what they think and who cares, presuming those animals can think (with apologies to animals).

Here's the proper response: carpet bomb Libya and do an old fashion Curtis LeMay/ Harry Truman firestorm bombing of Libya's cities. Then tell the rest of those animals to have proper respect for our feelings and sensitivities.

Here's the proper response: carpet bomb Libya and do an old fashion Curtis LeMay/ Harry Truman firestorm bombing of Libya's cities. Then tell the rest of those animals to have proper respect for our feelings and sensitivities.

They definitely hate our freedom of speech. That said, there a lot of people in Europe who hate our freedom of speech as well. Perceived racist comments made online will get you arrested in the UK. From reading the British press it seems to happen weekly if not more.

As an anecdote I know some Arab Muslims from my time in Europe who culturally denigrate blacks. Blacks were slaves until not that long ago in Saudi Arabia. So what's a great symbol to us probably carries less potency in some other countries.

"Althouse said....And we here in America are having a debate about what our political values are. It is not to censor videos. I trust that's not in question."

While this may seem a peripheral issue in the midst of current events, censorship of videos is in fact "in question." The current Republican platform includes very comprehensive anti-pornography language thanks to Tony Perkins and the rest of the "usual suspects." They want vigorous enforcement of laws which would lead to "censorship of videos."

Of course, the main difference between our extremist right wing religious crazies and the Islamic extremist right wing crazies is that their's are talking to impoverished, unruly masses experiencing the birth pangs of democracy while ours are talking to angry, aging, overweight guys in their shorts spending their lives raging against "them" (except when they're "looking" at porn).

I hate to say this, but the whole Middle East just got played by one Coptic Christian. The Coptics are being persecuted in Egypt, chased out, burned out, assaulted and killed.

This guy threw together a dumb little film, overdubbed some lines with the name Mohammed, dropped in onto YouTube and just waited. The terrible people that were doing terrible things to his people reacted as terribly as he expected. I suspect they reacted worse than he expected.

Part of the reason people abroad resent the United States is something Americans can do very little about: envy. The richest, most powerful country in the world attracts the jealousy of others in much the same way that the richest, most powerful man in a small town attracts the jealousy of others. It will come his way no matter how kind, generous or humble he may be.

shiloh said... hmm, political unrest in the world. Who do you think that favors? willard or President Barack Hussein Obama?

And if Netanyahu unilaterally strikes Iran, who does that favor?

Or even if Netanyahu foolishly threatens to strike Iran, who does that favor?

Again, no wartime incumbent president has ever lost re-election.

According to Garage the fact that a political party would benefit from event X means they are rooting for it. So I wonder if he feels guilty about cheering for Americans among others to die for Obama's reelection or if that's just a few eggs breaking. I could speculate that he might re-evaluate how he arrives at such conclusions, but I like my speculation to involve at least a thread of possibility. Like hyperspace travel for instance. Or Atlantis.

The problem with dictators is that the exert domination and power over a people, keeping things seemingly under control, but by doing that do not allow the people to have other outlets. More than this, they often build frustration and focus it in ways that can be expressed within the culture. So, religion becomes especially volatile. The dictators use it to control and refocus the people onto distracting issues.

While the dictator is still in power, this frustration builds and grows and becomes a powder keg, one that the dictator can use to stifle the people or to direct the rage against some perceived enemy of the dictator. So we have Middle Eastern history of the last half century (and likely much more).

In removing the dictator we expose the religious rage, because the frustration has not yet found another avenue of expression.

But, with the dictator gone there actually can begin to develop other such avenues. But it takes a while.

Just as it took Europe a very long time to get past its own rage and violence that engulfed the world in death.

Aaron and Abraham are certainly common names, and there ain't a rush to add "Prophet" in front of them.

"Ron" and "Hubbard" are common names too, but no one says the Prophet L Ron Hubbard. "Prophet" is a loaded term that starts with the idea that the religion is true and this person is a prophet of it. You can't be a prophet unless what you are prophesising is true, otherwise they'll call you "so-called prophet."

So they say L Ron Hubbard the founder of the Church of Scientology. It is factually true without any actual judgment being rendered. Similarly, just say Mohammed the founder of Islam, and no further distinction from other Mohammeds need be made.

"Who knows what they think and who cares, presuming those animals can think (with apologies to animals)."

Not caring what other peoples around the world think has contributed to the mess we're in now. We're following the inevitable path of all previous world empires and will arrive at the same place as did they.

Paddy, you need to go one more step. Once you remove the dictator, all the wanna be dictators who were oppressed come out of the shadows and make a play for power. In the middle east and North Africa those oppressed aren't minor players and can wield significant, organized power.

In short, these are civil wars with religion being just one aspect and often a tool used by those seeking power.

I've never heard Aaron or Abraham being referred to as prophets. I don't think they're given that title in Scripture. Well, not Jewish or Christian, at least.

L Ron Hubbard has a full name. While the letter L, the first name Ron, and the last name Hubbard are all common separately, they're not common in that combination. So, that's probably why when talking about Scientology articles don't just say Ron.

Now, if the NYT started referring to the Prophet Jesus, then it'd really start showing Muslim bias.

To Cook, I think, and "that" is our freedom of speech, freedom, gays, women, etc.,

What makes *me* think they care in the least about that is because they SAY SO. If they were mad about a movie, they'd attack the movie maker. Instead they attack US for the crime of allowing it. Knowing that they hate our freedom and moral rot takes only LISTENING to the Imams when they explain why America is evil.

Read the statements published by Bin Laden, his declaration of war, or by the Muslim Brotherhood.

The only way to not realize just WHAT it is they hate is to decide that their clear statements are quaint and irrelevant. "Aw... the poor thing just wants to be looooved."

Here's the proper response: carpet bomb Libya and do an old fashion Curtis LeMay/ Harry Truman firestorm bombing of Libya's cities. Then tell the rest of those animals to have proper respect for our feelings and sensitivities.

The neo-con way. The American Exceptionalism way.

It worked, didn't it?

It ended the most destructive war in history and it obviated the need for an invasion that would have cost between 400,000 and a million Allied casualties and just about obliterated the Japanese race.

Michelle O says the greatest threat to American national security is fat people.

The Marines in Cairo are not allowed to carry live ammunition. Even Barney Fife got to carry one live round. (In his left breast pocket, if memory serves.) I guess the Marines are just supposed to say "Get off my lawn" to the camel-fucking pederast-worshiping nut-job wackos. Er, Mohammedans. Er, followers of the "religion of peace". (Lest we not forget that asshole appeasers of these turds include stupid fuckheads, er, Presidents, from both parties.)

An Israeli-Arab in the Knesset wants the UN to intervene against the US, or else there will be Armageddon. I guess the UN is supposed to invade us or something. Or maybe just double park more often in NYC. It's impossible to be certain.

WikiLeaks says this is all happening because the US is mean to albinos, er, I mean Julian Assange.

Meanwhile President Obama doesn't think the Egyptian regime is an ally. No shit, Sherlock! Apparently he forgot that he helped our enemies overthrow the allied government that had been in place.

Additionally, Hussein Soetero is continuing to plagiarize Jimmy Carter lines from 1980. Shooting from the hip? Like about a police incident in Cambridge?

The press thinks the greatest threat to liberty comes from magic underwear wearing Mormons, and not from towel headed psychopaths who want mass slaughter at the drop of a hat. Seriously, all this over a YouTube clip that had zero viewers until two days ago? They couldn't even bother to get pissed off at something good that people had seen, like an episode of South Park?

The world is not a real place. It is a parody world being fed into my head by aliens/communists/Nazis/Skynet, or possibly by writers for cancelled Comedy Central television shows.

Why would carpet bombing Libya be the neo-con way? Neo-cons want to spread democracy across the Middle East and the world, not obliterate cities.

No, carpet bombing Libya is not the neo-con way. I'm guilty of hyperbole on that one. Employing whatever strongarm tactics they choose to spread democracy with little foresight, understanding, or interest in the rest of world's opinion or cooperation is the neo-con way, however, as practiced by Cheney, Wolfowitz or Bolton.

"We're the last Superpower standing. We are the last great hope for the tyrannized third-worlders of the LDNs, fuck 'em if they don't like it." That was the neo-con way.

What's with the "And when you answer you better use that word correctly" bullshit? First, I have no idea what word you're talking about. Second, don't speak to me in threatening language, Magne.

I think Ann has finally had it with both Team O and its MSM-spinmeisters. When she writes her 'why I couldn't vote for O again' post, this episode will be a major part of the story. It's not just the inane quality of the MSM narrative. It's O's bizarre concept of leadership on full display.

I think Ann has finally had it with both Team O and its MSM-spinmeisters. When she writes her 'why I couldn't vote for O again' post, this episode will be a major part of the story. It's not just the inane quality of the MSM narrative. It's O's bizarre concept of leadership on full display.

What kind of a primitive savage do you have to be to kill 20 million people who disagree with your plan to take capitalism up to the next stages of progressive advancement?

C'mon Cook, it always was a dream. Germany never turned. Mao's Great leap forward. The Soviets were always brutal. Cuba's a mess. Chavez is a thug. South America's a mix of Spanish insularity and Bolivarian idiocy. One more revolution.

The bottom line for me is that the word Prophet contains assumptions that make it unlike most other religious titles like Reverend or Father. You don't say Prophet Jim Jones or Prophet David Koresh so you shouldn't say Prophet Mohammed. Unless you are happy to boost supporters of Mohammed.

Of course, the main difference between our extremist right wing religious crazies and the Islamic extremist right wing crazies...

And your evidence that Islamists are right wing? Do they read the Weekly Standard? Are they big Ayn Rand fans? Maybe Mark Steyn is their favorite infidel. I know! They advocate a decentralized economic model!

"Lyle said... Lyle said...They definitely hate our freedom of speech. That said, there a lot of people in Europe who hate our freedom of speech as well.."

Lyle - Europeans enjoy "freedom of speech" - the question is what constitutes speech that crosses the line articulated by Holmes as falsely crying "fire" in a crowded theater - inciting chaos.

The question becomes where the line should be drawn. If that video on YouTube could be shown to have been created to effectively "falsely cry fire" - if no actual movie ever existed, or if the actors involved were deceived as to the subject of the film, or the producer and his funding sources were all fictitious - and if there was a deliberate effort to deceive Islamic extremists by promoting the "film" on a website they are known to monitor - a discussion as to whether this constituted a conspiracy to create something which would have in our globally connected age an equivalent affect to Holme's falsely crying "fire" in a crowded theater.

They--or some of them--may deplore our culture and what they perceive to be our immorality, but what they more likely hate badly enough to get violent about it is our interference in their lands.

Robert Cook seems to have the typical liberal grounding in Islam, i.e. none.

I tell people to read the Quran, read the encyclopedia entries on Islam and Muhammad, and the nature of Islam becomes clear. Islam is a violent supremacist religion whose prophet was a religious teacher and a warlord. Within a century after Muhammad founded Islam, his followers had conquered Northern Africa, Arabia, Persia, and Spain.

Islam separates the world into the House of Peace and the House of War. Anywhere Islam does not rule is the House of War.

If one reads what Bin Laden said after 9-11 (as Synova recommends), among other things he was babbling about the humiliation of Andalusia, i.e. when Muslims were driven out of Spain in the 15th century.

In the lede paragraph of every artoicle on the "mobs" were the supposed motivations. Very curious how the media can read the minds of anti-American fanatics but cannot ever comprehend the motives of Conservatives. I guess it "takes one to know one" sometimes. Good riddance and RIP to the formerly objective media -- if they ever existed. Fuck 'em!

Synova, "they" say it because they are playing us. Al Quaida, bin Laden, etc. all understand that the political correctness of the west, especially in the media, will provide the excuses the terrorists desire. They are very much like the communists in this regard. Both played liberals like a violin; that a lot of conservatives went along for the ride was a bonus.

I picture Red Robert and his fellow travelers all gathered at a high school gym somewhere, Pete Seeger and Woody Guthrie wafting languidly over the PA system, everyone in a state of giddy anticipation, speaking in hushed tones, handing out action plans to one another copied at Kinko's, in a state of awe at the revolution to come.

Kevin, good links, though they don't use Prophet as a title (whereas we would speak of King David).

Again, though, I'm not disputing your claim that the NYT no doubt is showing a preference, but they certainly are doing it in a way that makes sense. And they certainly could be showing even more deference if that was their goal.(peace be upon him) for instance.

Maybe I'm just less sensitive to titles that don't reflect actual roles. There are a lot of bishops out there, after all, who I don't see as actually carrying authority over me in the church. A lot of pastors who don't actually pastor. Unrevered reverends and Fathers who didn't participate in my being born. I'll call Theresa a Mother because that distinguishes her from other Theresas, even as I would resist the suggestion she gave birth to me.

Dave, I saw someone (elsewhere... commenters are smarter here) that of *course* we had freedom of speech to express or even *mock* religion, any religion... but that freedom of speech didn't extend to *denigrating* religion.

I lost the location of it, but I asked for an example or two of "mocking" Islam, so we could know what that looked like and could tell the difference between "mocking" and "denigration."

Yes, we have libel and slander laws, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. This supposedly horrible movie is a ridiculous movie. Does anyone bother to look at it and see if it's worth killing over? No, our elected officials grant legitimacy to the offense by saying that everyone involved is right to be offended by the "denigration" of their religion.

If there is a line drawn, somewhere, where we limit our freedom of speech, it's a long way from "at the point where religious people go ape shit."

Unless the lesson to be learned is that if Christians want respect for their religious feelings they shouldn't make movies, they should burn something down.

This is an incredibly insulting motivation for killing people. It assumes Muslims to to be fools and animals, with no self-control or reason. It portrays Islam as far inferior to any other religion on Earth, none of which would condone murdering innocent people over a video made by someone else in a distant land. I don't think it's the real motivation, and don't understand why Muslims would choose to claim it is.

They are the most conservative - devoted to creating a society that reflects their religious beliefs forcing their interpertation on everyone - exactly like extremist Christians in the U.S. like Tony Perkins.

Recruiting? "See? We can hurt the Americans any time we chose. We can insult them on Al Qaeda's great day of triumph. Join us and be a hero!"

If we start bombing villages in Libya it could be the more classic terrorist "message" of... "Look, our government is oppressive and/or ineffective. Join us and oppose the new American lackey government."

The "video made us do it" is the propaganda pretext that is fed to clueless news outlets like the NYT, who repeat it verbatim without any skepticism, as it validates their worldview of the Middle East and Muslims as victims of Western Colonial Occupiers and thus, not responsible.

Nevermind how they blame the US for the actions of the 19th century British Empire, we're supposed to ignore inconvenient facts when they conflict with the propaganda narrative.

They are the most conservative - devoted to creating a society that reflects their religious beliefs forcing their interpertation on everyone - exactly like extremist Christians in the U.S. like Tony Perkins.

__________________________________

They are like the Islamists because they think banks are evil for charging interest.

They are the most conservative - devoted to creating a society that reflects their religious beliefs forcing their interpertation on everyone - exactly like extremist Christians in the U.S. like Tony Perkins.

So a tangential aim of a fringe group of Americans defines the entire conservative movement. That must mean that since Stalin starved millions of kulaks to death, that you, Dave, advocate genocide. Like I said, dishonest putz.

So, when Andy Hat Boy comes around bashing Christians and cosnervatives for opposing same sex marriage by called them bigots, he will be condemned for 'denigrating a religion' by the lefty trolls supporting speech censorship when Muslims are offended.

ST-I don't know how coordinated this is. There was some planning, and the Al Qaeda groups have thought about it, but I think it's more about taking advantage of the vacuum in the wake of many an autocrats demise. There's a lot of chaos and anger. The U.S. is an easy target.

The longer that vacuum goes on, usually the worse the outcomes. They're whipping up passion for their own ends. So is Morsi in Egypt to solidify his Brotherhood led coalition in Egypt, but that was probably a matter of time.

Any Western attempt (free Muslims from tyrants...or use human rights and secular humanism as a raft) is going to run against the fact that democratic institutions require great sacrifice and great commitment, and institutions built over generations.

As Edmund Burke said, 'the minds of men must be fitted to it.'

With the Wahabis, the Salafis, Al Qaeda, the Brotherhood, Iran-controlled Hizbollah, there is an Islamic resurgence afoot. The conditions on the ground are chaotic (in Libya, atrocious after Gadhafi), and frankly, this isn't that surprising. This is the politics emerging.

I don't think we throw in the towel for less Islamism and greater representative gov't, but the current administration's approach is sorely lacking, and I don't have so much confidence in Romney either.

"They are the most conservative - devoted to creating a society that reflects their religious beliefs forcing their interpertation on everyone - exactly like extremist Christians in the U.S. like Tony Perkins."

Libertarian leaning Christians like myself, who am profoundly conservative, would point out that what you've described is Statism, and that is not a necessary component of conservatism. There are certainly Statist, big government, social conservatives, but forcing *their interpretation* on everyone else is about as likely as the Lutherans and Baptists dissolving their denominations and joining together with one interpretation. Not going to happen. It's completely absurd.

Which is why I said this is an opinion based on prejudice and perhaps bigotry. Someone viewing religious and social conservatives *objectively* would see how absurd the notion is.

Yes, yes, yes... there are some. They have something in common, a political philosophy in common with a great number of those on the Left. That is, that anything wrong should be forbidden and anything good should be compelled. This is far far far from a "religious" point of view. It's a philosophy and world view separate from the ideology it's applied to.

What I see is supposed "liberals" who want to "force their interpretation on everybody." The difference is that they think they're right.

Lastly, political divisions in the US don't even map to European divisions. Why would anyone think they map to the middle east?

If the bright line is falsely crying "fire" in a crowded theater, my understanding is that goes to intent. The known result of crying fire is that people will run for the exits - chaos. The intent of the speech then is chaos potential physical harm. That's an abuse of free speech that crosses the line.

So, if the case could be made that this video had the same intent with the same certainty of outcome - why doesn't it cross that line as well?

Why shouldn't the people producing and promoting it ALSO be held responsible for the death of an American Ambassador and three other consular employees?

So, losing a war justifies decades of lynchings of a people who were formerly your slaves, with picnic lunches along to enhance the festivities?

No. That's not remotely what he meant, Robert, and you know it.

I try to enjoy your postings, but your constant, inevitable airing of America's sins - as though we are the worst nation on the face of the earth - betrays an almost masochistic enjoyment of wearing a hairshirt.

The progressives trump card and likely deepest moral argument is being on the 'right side' of history and freedom with slavery (many weren't of course, and it's more complex). Of course this comes with all their other plans for the rest of us, but it's deep.

It portrays Islam as far inferior to any other religion on Earth, none of which would condone murdering innocent people over a video made by someone else in a distant land. I don't think it's the real motivation, and don't understand why Muslims would choose to claim it is.

bagoh20: Islam is inferior to all other religions. I don't like saying that.

Throughout history Muslims have murdered people on just about any pretext that was convenient. Muhammad himself oversaw the beheadings of several hundred Jewish men in a single day because their tribe (Banu Qurayza) allegedly conspired with another tribe against Muhammad. Nothing going on today is unusual for Islam except for the technology involved (none of which they invented).

You have to read the Quran and Islamic history to grasp the horror of Islam. While it functions as a religion in many ways -- it provides spiritual teaching, community, ritual, scriptures and sacraments -- it is also a violent ideological force as no other religion is.

While al-Qaeda leaders knowingly used a anti-Islam video to inflame their co-religionists, the video was blasphemous and that alone justifies Muslim violence and killing. It's horrible and insane, but true.

where I struggle to figure out how they know the precise motivation of a mob. Who is conveying this information to the NYT?

Is this a joke? I'm not intimately familiar with the details of these particular demonstrations, but typically the participants in a political demonstration make it abundantly clear WHAT THEY ARE DEMONSTRATING AGAINST.

If a newspaper reports that a particular demonstration was against X, I would presume their reporters or informers simply read the signs and listened to the chants at the demonstration, and there's no particular need to quote the details of the signs and chants. Do you have some reason to believe these demonstrators were being abnormally secretive about their intent?

So, the US is attacked 9/11/01 and the country unites behind it's President...fast forward....the US is attacked 9/11/12 and the current President is attacked repeatedly by political opposition...even before the facts are known...

Yep, they're going to keep pushing that string. Keep building that giant pyramid scheme. The answer to debt is more debt. Scary.

What's really bad is that announcing $85 B a MONTH in additionally monetary stimulus is an acknowledgement that they do not believe that Washington DC can or will control their deficit spending. Look for them to up the amount of "stimulus" from Operation TWIST above the current $45 B a month level within six months, no matter how the election goes in November.

They're basically admitting that they have no clue what to do except start debasing the currency.

machine said... So, the US is attacked 9/11/01 and the country unites behind it's President...fast forward....the US is attacked 9/11/12 and the current President is attacked repeatedly by political opposition

Actually, "Christopher in MA," I don't what he meant. My question is the closest I could come to inferring his meaning.

We are not the worst nation on earth, but we are presently the most powerful, (and the most self-righteous and self-flattering about our virtue), and we are the empire du jour. We want what we want and we do violence or otherwise interfere in other lands to get what we want. We are just the latest in a long line, and we seem, so far, to be following in our predecessors' footsteps.

As citizens of this country, this country's misbehavior is our primary concern, not pointless exercises such as pointing out how bad another country's behavior may be, which are beside the point even when accurate.

I think Obama made a mistake with the whole "Arab Spring" thing. He thought Michelle was saying this was the "Arab Spring" one day when she was in the shower. What she really said is, "Barak, we're out of Irish Spring." Easily confused.

If Obama had led us by being a uniting figure as opposed to a divisive one, people would rally to him. With Libya, specifically, he spurned Congress and refused to build a coalition of the willing among his own countrymen.

So, yeah. He might be suffering a bit for that hubris in people not rallying to support the man who spurned their help.

In short, Bush was a leader like we are told Obama would be. He marshaled consensus, sacrificing efficiency for agreement, and reached out to the world and across the aisle to have support, even from his political enemies.

Obama saw a goal, cowboyed forward without so much as a by your leave. Sort of like what people pretended Bush did.

You know though? People on the left were correct. Bush's method built lasting alliances and goodwill that allowed us to succeed after hard fought actions as best as we could. Obama's style left us with multiple embassies burning.

So, the US is attacked 9/11/01 and the country unites behind it's President...fast forward....the US is attacked 9/11/12 and the current President is attacked repeatedly by political opposition...even before the facts are known...

hmmmm......

We did, yes. You covered up your "He's not MY President!" bumperstickers until you could see which way the wind was blowing. You can take your "hmmm" and shove it up your ass next to your head.

What kind of primitive savage do you have to be to torture and lynch a young black boy for allegedly flirting with a white woman? (Emmett Till.) What kind of primitive savages must you be to allow decades of brutal lynchings--at which many attended with packed picnic lunches?

Robert do you have anything more current? It's safe to say those actions are viewed today as reprehensible acts. What you are implying is we should not judge these savages because 60 years ago some guys in white sheets acted in a similar manner.

As citizens of this country, this country's misbehavior is our primary concern, not pointless exercises such as pointing out how bad another country's behavior may be, which are beside the point even when accurate.

Then what is the point of bringing up lynching? We have grown beyond that. If your meaning was that Muslims are currently in the state that we were 100 years ago, then say so.

Robert Cook wrote:We are not the worst nation on earth, but we are presently the most powerful, (and the most self-righteous and self-flattering about our virtue), and we are the empire du jour. We want what we want and we do violence or otherwise interfere in other lands to get what we want. We are just the latest in a long line, and we seem, so far, to be following in our predecessors' footsteps.

We, as a country try to act as befits our own self interest. But how is that different from any other country under the sun? You think all those arab states telling Israel what it must do are not trying to interfere to get what they want, and have no problem using violence to achieve their result?

You think the UN doesn't tell countries how to behave? What about apartheid? We and others weren't telling S Africa how they should govern?

If all countries do that by necessity, then why single the US out as if their behavior is unique?

So, the US is attacked 9/11/01 and the country unites behind it's President...fast forward....the US is attacked 9/11/12 and the current President is attacked repeatedly by political opposition...even before the facts are known...

hmmmm......

Here's one difference, spambot-- 9/11/01 was enabled by the hands-off policies of the Clinton administration. As for uniting behind the president, well, after voting for military action in Iraq, your lefty Senate caucus decided to change its tune for purely political purposes, and damn the United States. So much for all that uniting.

Which brings us to 9/11/12. The events of the past two days rest squarely on the shoulders of Barack Obama and his policies of bowing, scraping, and apologizing to the Islamist animals. You cannot discourage your enemies by showing your underbelly.

I figured that's what he meant when he said "not an ally," the problem being that he has used the term colloquially as well as technically. It's just a sloppy speech habit. If you're going to be overly exacting and specific, you have to be so -all the time.-

I read some twaddle the other day about how America would never grow beyond the horror of slavery.

And I wondered... how does anyone else in the world manage it? We fought a horrible war to end slavery (among other things, that was certainly one of goals) and is that enough? No. Were rivers of blood enough? No.

Nothing is enough because no one WANTS it to be enough.

And I wonder... how does any other country grow past massacres and horrors and the stain of their own History?

But I think it's reverse pride. Look how moral we are, look how LONG we wear this hair shirt. Look how much better *I* am than other Americans who think we ought to move on and appreciate our strengths and virtues. Look at how much better I am when I point out the equivalencies and refuse to Judge.

Our continued being upset over slavery is one of the great things about our country. At the Holocaust Museum in D.C., when I went there, there was a whole room dedicated to how the U.S. failed, which was a reminder: Do not ever allow such a moral failure to happen again. It is one of the things that makes us one of, if not the best, nation in the world. We accept our failings and use them as lessons to better ourselves.

If the bright line is falsely crying "fire" in a crowded theater, my understanding is that goes to intent. The known result of crying fire is that people will run for the exits - chaos. The intent of the speech then is chaos potential physical harm. That's an abuse of free speech that crosses the line.

So, if the case could be made that this video had the same intent with the same certainty of outcome - why doesn't it cross that line as well?

Why shouldn't the people producing and promoting it ALSO be held responsible for the death of an American Ambassador and three other consular employees?

Because there is a "reasonable man" standard applied to such cause-effect relationships.

To answer your question about other countries, they simply ignore their past history. Turkey will go apeshit at the mention of the Armenian genocide, Japan completely whitewashes their horrific actions in WW2. Russia slaughtered tens of millions of its own people and millions more to create a Soviet paradise and they neither acknowledge or apologize.

Yet we are expected to in a perpetual state of penance for an institution that's been eradicated for the last 150 years. As my English cousin would say, bollocks.

I pointed out that thanks to George Bush's War on Terror, there are conservatively tens of thousands of Islamists who no longer hate us, because they're deader than a stump.

You don't have to be familiar with Solzhenitsyn to figure out that for every Islamist "deader than a stump" you've left two, three, five, ten or more relatives and friends in their wake who now, what, love us?

Stick to that macho neo-con logic though. It's not like it's going to harm our image in the world.

"If all countries (are self-seeking) by necessity (who says?) then why single the US out as if their behavior is unique?

Our behavior is not unique in history, and is unique in present times only in the extent of our reach and power and thus in the damage we can do and have done.

As American citizens, we must criticize our country where we consider it has gone wrong. What point is there to criticizing countries of which we're not citizens? Their behavior neither reflects our consent nor is subject to self-corrective behavior by our lack of consent.

Presumably, as a self-governed nation, (remember, I said presumably), our nation's behavior does reflect our consent and is subject to correcting its behavior through our lack of consent.

Okay...point taken...every country is self-righteous about its own virtue, but it only really counts when one's country is the most powerful and most violent country in the world. There have been others before and there will be others after us. At this point in time, it's us.

Okay...point taken...every country is self-righteous about its own virtue, but it only really counts when one's country is the most powerful and most violent country in the world. There have been others before and there will be others after us. At this point in time, it's us.

Robert, I would love to know by what metric you consider us to be the most violent country in the world. As said in The Princess Bride, "you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."~ G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know...."~ Bush, in remarks in a Press Availability with the Press Travel Pool, The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on official White House site.

"Suicide bombers detonated each of the truck bombs. In the attack on the American Marines barracks, the death toll was 241 American servicemen: 220 marines, 18 sailors and three soldiers, along with sixty Americans injured, representing the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States Marine Corps since the Battle of Iwo Jima of World War II, the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States military since the first day of the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War, and the deadliest single attack on Americans overseas since World War II.

U.S. President Ronald Reagan called the attack a "despicable act" and pledged to keep a military force in Lebanon. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, who had privately advised the administration against stationing U.S. Marines in Lebanon, said there would be no change in the U.S.'s Lebanon policy. U.S. Vice President George H. W. Bush toured the Marine bombed-site on October 26 and said the U.S. "would not be cowed by terrorists."

>

There was no serious retaliation for the Beirut bombing from the Americans, besides a few shellings.

Multi-service ground-support units were withdrawn from Beirut after the attack on the barracks due to retaliatory threats.

In the meantime, the attack boosted the prestige and growth of the Shi'ite organization Hezbollah.

The U.S. Marines were moved offshore where they could not be targeted. On February 7, 1984, President Reagan ordered the marines to begin withdrawing from Lebanon. Their withdrawal was completed on February 26, four months after the barracks bombing; the rest of the multinational force was withdrawn by April 1984."

>

Recapping Reagan kowtowed to terrorists!

Did I mention IOKIYAR.

btw, a two days after the Beirut disaster Dutch kicked ass! in Greneda. Whew, what a relief lol.

You don't have to be familiar with Solzhenitsyn to figure out that for every Islamist "deader than a stump" you've left two, three, five, ten or more relatives and friends in their wake who now, what, love us?

Oh come now, surely you realise human psychology is not so simple. Remember the example of Mr. Taylor?

He killed my Ma, he killed my Pa, but I will vote for him.

In any event, the logic that killing peoples' sons and fathers will lead them inexorably to hate us founders against the fact of postwar Germany and Japan, where we slaughtered not only an entire generation of their young men, but reduced whole cities of women and children to rubble and ash. Perhaps they hated us, after the war -- one could hardly blame them -- but it hardly mattered, in the end. They had also known the terror of the American arms. "Oderint dum metuant," as the ancients said.

"We're all Osama, Obama!!" The Al Qaeda backed mob chanted and shouted over and over again. THEY WERE SENDING A MESSAGE TO BARACK OBAMA PERSONALLY-A leader of the mob in Cairo stepped up to the cheers of protestors to say to Arab media gathered:"We are not afraid of you, we hold you and now all America in utter contempt, and we will with great pleasure kill anything American every chance we get".

Keep in mind this comes from the mouths that need Western aid to buy western and Russian wheat and corn to go into the same mouths. Because Egypt is another 3rd World country like Haiti, that has outbred the capacity of arable land in their own country to feed them. In fact, Egypt is now the most dependent nation out there.

I know liberals and Progressive Jews scream "We are better than that!!!" when anyone talks about severe punishment for enemies of America.....

But isn't it time? Time to cut off the 1.7 billion welfare check Egypt gets by treaty, as long as we give Israel its 3.3 billion welfare stipend (for the last 34 years plus 'extras" for both welfare queen nations???Isn't it time to cut off borrowing from China so Egypt can borrow money it can never repay to buy food for masses that hate us but who cannot feed themselves??

The "moral equivalence" argument is used by the lefties here to shut people up and to change the subject in order to avoid addressing the issue being discussed, which is Obamas incompetent foreign policy of appeasing Islamic Nazis and sucking up to dictators that hate the USA.

"This is an incredibly insulting motivation for killing people. It assumes Muslims to to be fools and animals, with no self-control or reason. It portrays Islam as far inferior to any other religion on Earth, none of which would condone murdering innocent people over a video made by someone else in a distant land. I don't think it's the real motivation, and don't understand why Muslims would choose to claim it is."

Sure, you can analyze that to death, but why not just take them at their word when they tell us is is their motivation? I'm always amazed when people faced with a wild-eyed Imam shouting, "I will kill all infidels in the name of Allah!", are interested in wasting their time and effort to get to the "real" motivation. If you don;t want to infantilize them, take them at their word.

Hmmm...so many literal minded people here, as usual. The point I made about slavery and lynchings had only to do with correcting the self-serving false notion that people of other nations are uniquely "primitive" or "savage," as opposed to our (self-presumed) "advanced" nature.

Human beings are human beings, and we are violent, primitive creatures, hairless apes with a patina of rationality. No nation anywhere is immune to spasms of primitive violence and superstition and savage hatred. As with my point about the pointlessness of criticizing other countries than our own, it serves no purpose to falesly believe we are uniquely advanced while everyone else is uniquely primitive, in essence, in comparison to us, "sub-human."

The power of un-censored internet speech telling truths about their made up religion of the sword is such a threat to the Muslim Cultists everywhere that they have re-declared a war of extermination against Jews and Christians, knowing that the end of the Muslim deception is near.

NYT in holding pattern, continuing false movie incitement meme pre-approved by Obama, waiting for Romney to blink/breathe or otherwise show signs of life so he can be accused of making a gaffe. Oh, you want INFORMATION about a CURRENT EVENT? Well, it's under review right now. Get back to us after our afternoon coordination call with Obama for America.

Egypt is only 42% self-sufficient in food. Similar conditions exist for Yemen, Jordan, Libya.

Forget about the talk of carpet-bombing Egypt.

Cut off their food.

And ignore the leftist, progressive Jewish media hysteria about us "harming innocent civilians".

No, the civilians are either our friends, our enemies, or neutrals. Like the civilian citizens of Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Jordan...they appear to be enemy civilians.

Cut off their food. 25-30 million could die in Egypt alone. But before the starvation happened from THAT reality check, Egypt would be in complete chaos and headed to collapse.(WWI ended not on the battlefield, but when the Germans were starved by the Brit Royal Navy blockade into surrender then capitulation to Terms of the Armistice. In that,1.5-2 million Germans died of starvation or illnesses that took malnourished "innocent civilians".)

We could intensify it by selective bombing to take out Egypts power supply - that would make local commerce and agriculture very difficult.

And we could relent when the Egyptians agree to sing praises to Christian charity about food, the Head Mullah of the Cairo Mosque denounces radical Islam and all Islamists.And when the Egyptians are seen assembling and singing the national anthems of food exporting infidels like Canada, Brazil, Russia, America, Thailand and expressing gratitude that they will help the Egyptians when Allah did not answer their prayers.